Perez v. Cogburn

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 22, 2019
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01800
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C18-1800-JLR-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 CALVIN COGBURN, 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff, Daniel Jay Perez, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 14 rights action, moves the Court to appoint counsel. Dkt. 48. For the following reasons, the Court 15 DENIES the motion. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 17 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections 19 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 20 circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 21 ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 22 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 23 1 Plaintiff contends he requires counsel because he is indigent and cannot retain counsel, 2 the issues in his case are complex, DOC Policy 590.500 limits his ability to possess legal 3 materials, he has limited access to the law library, he has had problems obtaining discovery from 4 the defendants, and he has no legal training. Dkt. 48.

5 Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of “exceptional circumstances” to support his 6 request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is plainly capable of articulating his claims pro se. 7 He has filed numerous typed pleadings and they demonstrate plaintiff is familiar with the court 8 rules and law pertaining to his claims. Plaintiff’s contention he has limited law library time, 9 resources, legal knowledge are not exceptional circumstances because these limitations are 10 applicable to virtually all pro se prisoner plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s contention DOC Policy 590.500 11 justifies appointment of counsel is unfounded. The policy applies to all DOC prisoners and is 12 thus also not an exceptional circumstance. Moreover, defendants’ counsel indicates she is 13 working with plaintiff’s prison facility to ensure he can access his personal legal materials and 14 documents, and to ensure plaintiff and the prison are on the same page regarding the application

15 of DOC Policy 590.500. See Dkt 55, at 2. In addition, this is not a complex case involving 16 complex facts or law. The complaint alleges defendants violated plaintiff’s rights by 17 involuntarily administering anti-psychotic medications. Appointment of counsel is therefore not 18 justified at this time, and the Court DENIES the motion. Dkt. 4. 19 The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 20 DATED this 22nd day of August, 2019. 21 A 22 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 23